Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly can a melee fighter do, that a dragon rider couldn't?
Melee vs ranged, the melee has to close the distance to get the upper hand, melee vs flyer... uhhh the melee has to defy the laws of physics or be a flyer himself.
Enter a cave, explore the forest, cross the mountains, hit the broad side of a barn (Assuming that the dragonrider isn't ALSO a combatant, and they have roughly equal total skills)
(Assuming the dragonrider IS also a combatant, and they have roughly equal total skills) Forge a sword, design an anti-air ballista, play an instrument, train a griffon, convince a dragon to be a mount, hide from a dragon and rider, afford the livestock required to feed a large flying creature...
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Do the complication that would arise with Open PvP concern you?The idea of open PvP concerns me to begin with.Well lets take PVP out for a second and ask, how would you handle the PVE side of it? Do you make 95% of enemies ranged? How do you stop a player from trivially eliminating every enemy without ranged attacks by flying over them, without putting every enemy of worth inside of a cave?
How do you make travel a challenge from anything, whether enemies or players when you add unlimited flight?
Why is adding flying mounts the same as adding unlimited flight?
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is adding flying mounts the same as adding unlimited flight?Do the complication that would arise with Open PvP concern you?The idea of open PvP concerns me to begin with.Well lets take PVP out for a second and ask, how would you handle the PVE side of it? Do you make 95% of enemies ranged? How do you stop a player from trivially eliminating every enemy without ranged attacks by flying over them, without putting every enemy of worth inside of a cave?
How do you make travel a challenge from anything, whether enemies or players when you add unlimited flight?
it kind of becomes when one has pocket full of dragons ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This assumes you are out leveling your defense skills to. The logic of this statement makes it sound as if a Medical Doctor should not have to worry about Wild Animals while wandering in Africa because he has been grinding a skill for 10 years.
It strikes me that whether you level your combat skills or your flying mount skills, either one allows you to overcome the challenge that traveling through the wilderness poses.
I don't see a problem, here.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
it kind of becomes when one has pocket full of dragons ;)Why is adding flying mounts the same as adding unlimited flight?Do the complication that would arise with Open PvP concern you?The idea of open PvP concerns me to begin with.Well lets take PVP out for a second and ask, how would you handle the PVE side of it? Do you make 95% of enemies ranged? How do you stop a player from trivially eliminating every enemy without ranged attacks by flying over them, without putting every enemy of worth inside of a cave?
How do you make travel a challenge from anything, whether enemies or players when you add unlimited flight?
Well, my pocket dragon doesn't provide anything that could be describes as 'unlimited flight'. What kinds of dragons do you have such that the cost in food per flight hour isn't a significant drain on your total resources?
hmm flying mounts still works...Vanguard MMO had flying mounts..Lineage 2 MMO had dragons and wyverns as mounts and sieges..i don't understand the problem..do the epic quest and get a epic mount rather than a typical pony or horse..what is the problem.If this is a sandbox mmo you should be able to train and achieve most things thru hard work and skill usage and questing. Want to run a stable and train exotic pets or mounts go for it. How is teleportation stations and transporter like beam me up scotty travel more fantasy like..some wizard gonna set up a gate way portal service to transport ppl across the map at high cost..well then again i always thought portal travel was lazy..but then again if your a wizard or mage that wants to set up one and stand around using his magic to port ppl go for it..whatever floats your river kingdom boat. yeah while your training your pets and mounts for me to spend my gold or fiddling with the portal attunements in your gateways i will be killing stuff and getting adventurous swag...lol
play it the way you want to i believe..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This assumes you are out leveling your defense skills to. The logic of this statement makes it sound as if a Medical Doctor should not have to worry about Wild Animals while wandering in Africa because he has been grinding a skill for 10 years.It strikes me that whether you level your combat skills or your flying mount skills, either one allows you to overcome the challenge that traveling through the wilderness poses.
I don't see a problem, here.
By the time someone has advanced to the point where they have consistent access to a flying mount, wilderness travel probably doesn't have much to offer them in the way of danger, anyway.
I may have misunderstood you, but even upon rereading I still looks as if you are saying access to a flying mount equals the ability to defend yourself from anything in a wilderness and I do not see how that follows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This assumes you are out leveling your defense skills to. The logic of this statement makes it sound as if a Medical Doctor should not have to worry about Wild Animals while wandering in Africa because he has been grinding a skill for 10 years.It strikes me that whether you level your combat skills or your flying mount skills, either one allows you to overcome the challenge that traveling through the wilderness poses.
I don't see a problem, here.
By the time someone has advanced to the point where they have consistent access to a flying mount, wilderness travel probably doesn't have much to offer them in the way of danger, anyway.I may have misunderstood you, but even upon rereading I still looks as if you are saying access to a flying mount equals the ability to defend yourself from anything in a wilderness and I do not see how that follows.
Wilderness travel is an obstacle to be overcome. Past a certain point, I imagine that wilderness travel will become trivial for combat-focused characters. You might encounter some monsters, but you will easily outclass them.
Similarly, owning a flying mount overcomes that same obstacle. Granted, it's easier to fly over something than fight your way through it (even if the fighting is a cakewalk), but the tradeoff is that owning a flying mount doesn't allow you to do much except fly from one place to another - you still have to train combat skills or crafting skills to do anything else. On the other hand, being combat-focused allows you to travel through the wilderness with ease, but also allows you to explore dungeons, fight dragons, loot tombs, siege castles, duel enemies, and any number of other things. I think there is plenty of room to balance the skills against one another, especially since mastering flying mounts will probably be easier than mastering combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
mastering flying mounts will probably be easier than mastering combat.We will have to disagree here too. I hope it isn't and there is no reason it should be.
I can think of a number of reasons.
1) The ability to fly will probably have less utility in-game than the ability to win fights will. See above for situations in which being able to win a fight will be handy on its own. The number of situations in which mounted flight will be handy on its own will be far fewer, I'd imagine (and far less profitable).
2) Combat will probably be comprised of a number of separate skills leveled individually.
3) Because combat is by nature adversarial, the devs will probably stretch its leveling process out in order to keep challenge in place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, no, can't have people teleported places. Ambushes won't work.
Can't allow players to work up skills or use out of the box tactics to make their play safer. Must be ambushable at all times.
We can't have in the box tactics lead to 100% safety, and able to get to the end destination with no risk no harm... Traveling on a flying mount or an inexpensive commonly usable teleport isn't thinking out of the box, it is something only an idiot would ever opt not to do.
Thinking out of the box is when you think outside of what everyone does, when you provide an easy way to do something that has no risk, it isn't out of the box, it is the box.
I am not saying 100% of the time abushable is the stated requirement, I am saying the locations with great rewards should have risk to get to them, and not have an easy guaranteed safe trip to them... now unless everything of high value is at the end of a long cave, or a possible workable system is if anti-air weaponry is reasonably obtainable for both castle defense as well as somehow portable enough for offense/forest combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, no, can't have people teleported places. Ambushes won't work.
Can't allow players to work up skills or use out of the box tactics to make their play safer. Must be ambushable at all times.We can't have in the box tactics lead to 100% safety, and able to get to the end destination with no risk no harm... Traveling on a flying mount or an inexpensive commonly usable teleport isn't thinking out of the box, it is something only an idiot would ever opt not to do.
Thinking out of the box is when you think outside of what everyone does, when you provide an easy way to do something that has no risk, it isn't out of the box, it is the box.
I am not saying 100% of the time abushable is the stated requirement, I am saying the locations with great rewards should have risk to get to them, and not have an easy guaranteed safe trip to them... now unless everything of high value is at the end of a long cave, or a possible workable system is if anti-air weaponry is reasonably obtainable for both castle defense as well as somehow portable enough for offense/forest combat.
So then let people ambush other people at the mouth of the cave. You don't need to allow teleportation that lets you go anywhere - you could use a system like the one seen in 4e, where you typically have to teleport to a teleportation circle, and each circle has its own rune pattern that must be memorized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember, a range of forms of travel will or should exist and riding a mount needn't be a requirement. If themeparks have done anything, they've made us forget that a game can function without everyone riding a horse. Taxi services, Wizard teleportation, wilderness skills for rangers to cut through difficult terrain at speed; there are many interesting alternatives to mounted travel. In my opinion, ones capacity for travelling large distances is part of the composition of any single character.
I'm not sure what you really mean by this. The Themepark MMOs that I'm familiar with use taxi services, wizard teleportation, and I want to even say some wilderness skills to expedite travel. However while those are all often preferable to a mount when available, none of them come close to negating the need for a mount in my mind. The options that you listed overall require the character to be at a location where there is a running taxi service or ample numbers of wizards and that they want to go to a commonly known and/or safe to get to location.
Using these will likely not get you to right where you need to be meaning that everyone will still need a horse to get places that much quicker and to avoid dangers that can out run you (like bandits riding horses).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way i look at it fly, walk, telport, swim, or magic carpet or steed either way they get to the destination and have to dismount to continue the journey in the adventure.Good luck getting a mount into a dungeon or if you have to search the ground that is heavly forested and over grown with thick vines or thorns or foliage you will have to dismount.
It doesn't concern me how ppl ride port or travel to the site.
If someone worked hard and skilled up to learn how to tame such beasts and use such magic and then trained to ride and control it ..it doesn't bother me.
If it is a flying mount i am sure there is flying obsticles as well, wind storms, other flying creatures that could cause hazard.Not to meantion what does the fortress or town think of some dragon or hippogriff or strange monstrous mount approaching do they arm the balista or catapults and bow shot?
it all comes with whatever someone chooses to use and they have to deal with thier choices in game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
We can't have in the box tactics lead to 100% safety, and able to get to the end destination with no risk no harm... Traveling on a flying mount or an inexpensive commonly usable teleport isn't thinking out of the box, it is something only an idiot would ever opt not to do.
If flying is so expensive that it takes a week to collect the finite resource (gold, cattle, whatever) spent in a day of flying all the time, only an idiot would fly all the time. If teleportation were so expensive that it is faster to walk than to earn the fee to teleport, then teleportation would be used situationaly. If the resources required to fly or teleport (mount food and teleportation stones, for example) are created in a finite manner and traded on an open market, then the economy will develop such that flight and teleportation are used situationaly.
If it costs me SP to buy hay to feed my horse, but GP to teleport and PP to feed a griffon for a long flight, I'll walk if I expect to earn SP, ride the horse if I expect to earn GP, teleport if I expect to earn PP, and ride my griffon into battle rarely; if livestock are produced at a rate of seven per farm per week, and a griffon needs to eat one unit of livestock per 30 minutes of flight, then an hour of flight time costs two days of farm production- and an opposing faction can ground your air force by attacking your farms with guerrilla troops and forcing you to either fly in to protect them or lose them entirely.
Capital costs of flying mounts are large, but operating expenses are huge.
The only thing i am opposed to is the Hello kitty, my little pony, with edward cullin twilight sparkling dayglo mounts....please..please goblinworks use those horsechoppers on these kiddy mounts and keep them from the game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, can't have people teleported places. Ambushes won't work.
Can't allow players to work up skills or use out of the box tactics to make their play safer. Must be ambushable at all times.We can't have in the box tactics lead to 100% safety, and able to get to the end destination with no risk no harm... Traveling on a flying mount or an inexpensive commonly usable teleport isn't thinking out of the box, it is something only an idiot would ever opt not to do.
Thinking out of the box is when you think outside of what everyone does, when you provide an easy way to do something that has no risk, it isn't out of the box, it is the box.
I am not saying 100% of the time abushable is the stated requirement, I am saying the locations with great rewards should have risk to get to them, and not have an easy guaranteed safe trip to them... now unless everything of high value is at the end of a long cave, or a possible workable system is if anti-air weaponry is reasonably obtainable for both castle defense as well as somehow portable enough for offense/forest combat.
Stealth skills and survival skills allow a player to avoid any ambush that can be avoided. Flying mounts allow for avoiding only those ambushes that can't effectively engage flying mounted players. The level of sophistication required for that ambush to effectively engage a flying mount is a tanglefoot arrow or fog spell. Don't forget the reduced carrying capacity involved with flyers, either- no half-ogres in plate mail need apply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) The ability to fly will probably have less utility in-game than the ability to win fights will. See above for situations in which being able to win a fight will be handy on its own. The number of situations in which mounted flight will be handy on its own will be far fewer, I'd imagine (and far less profitable).
That is a broad statement not only about the mechanics of a game no one has played...but also peoples play style. Just because every MMO out there requires combat, does not mean that given a choice to do other things, this is what people will always do in an MMO. I think someones previous example of Farmville, illustrates a demand for a non-combat "farming simulator". The fact that these "raise a pet" mini-games do well illustrates an audience for non-combat "pet raising simulators". Be careful not to mistake what has been done in MMOs to what must be done in MMOs. One does not follow from the other.
We have already had a discussion about how Dragons as a mount would be a great siege weapon. In a game where the endgame is politics and combat over territory, how is a powerful siege engine not useful? In fact, how is it not more useful than the one of many meleer? On the other hand, the meleer is more useful fighting where the mount cannot go. There is a time and usefulness for everything, finding it is part of the fun...it is not for you to say whose ideas of play is better than others. As you say, cooler is better, different people think different things are cooler.
2) Combat will probably be comprised of a number of separate skills leveled individually.
The ability to find, catch, feed, care for, raise, control, train, fly, and do combat with...a flying mount should be comprised of at least as many skills as melee combat. And this is before we discuss breeding them...
3) Because combat is by nature adversarial, the devs will probably stretch its leveling process out in order to keep challenge in place.
I don't see why the adversarial nature of a thing requires a mechanic that should be true for advancing all skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We can't have in the box tactics lead to 100% safety, and able to get to the end destination with no risk no harm... Traveling on a flying mount or an inexpensive commonly usable teleport isn't thinking out of the box, it is something only an idiot would ever opt not to do.
If flying is so expensive that it takes a week to collect the finite resource (gold, cattle, whatever) spent in a day of flying all the time, only an idiot would fly all the time. If teleportation were so expensive that it is faster to walk than to earn the fee to teleport, then teleportation would be used situationaly. If the resources required to fly or teleport (mount food and teleportation stones, for example) are created in a finite manner and traded on an open market, then the economy will develop such that flight and teleportation are used situationaly.
If it costs me SP to buy hay to feed my horse, but GP to teleport and PP to feed a griffon for a long flight, I'll walk if I expect to earn SP, ride the horse if I expect to earn GP, teleport if I expect to earn PP, and ride my griffon into battle rarely; if livestock are produced at a rate of seven per farm per week, and a griffon needs to eat one unit of livestock per 30 minutes of flight, then an hour of flight time costs two days of farm production- and an opposing faction can ground your air force by attacking your farms with guerrilla troops and forcing you to either fly in to protect them or lose them entirely.
Capital costs of flying mounts are large, but operating expenses are huge.
Exactly, this is why I argued mounts should not be despawnable...and they must be fed or they leave/die. Feeding a dragon would be expensive. Balance.
Exactly, this is why I argued mounts should not be despawnable...and they must be fed or they leave/die. Feeding a dragon would be expensive. Balance.
The problem with Mounts not being despawnable is that they then become great grief items and they also then tax the server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.
As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).
Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.
As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).
Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.
Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.
As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).
Actually, I guess it would be fine if there were less as long as they were repopulated over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.
As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).
Of course, it takes no more resources to have a dog in game as it does a griffon; they are both entities in the system. So, there actually only has to be limit to the number of entities on a server, something that would need to be the case anyways...and that could be upgraded as needed once they start making the money (more/better servers could be bought).
But, I agree with your point.
Which would be fine if there were limit of, for expample, 1000 griffins on the server. No more, no less. One dies, a new one is spawned somewhere.Anything can be a grief item. If they did away with everything that might be used such, we will find ourselves naked in padded rooms...alone.
As for taxing the server, I agree and that is why I conceded the issue, but I think there are solutions to be explored to solve this issue as well, instead of simply dropping the issue. A point though, if mounts are not spawnable, they are already in game prior to being caught/trained anyways...finding/buying a horse does not tax the server any more than it being out in the wild (depending on how far they go with the living ecosystem idea).
Of course, it takes no more resources to have a dog in game as it does a griffon; they are both entities in the system. So, there actually only has to be limit to the number of entities on a server, something that would need to be the case anyways...and that could be upgraded as needed once they start making the money (more/better servers could be bought).
But, I agree with your point.
Well, the other problem you'd encounter with that is if there were only 1000 griffins on the server and all of them have riders and you can't find one out in the wild. How do I get a griffin to ride?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree, I suppose supply and demand would drive the price of the griffons...as I think flying mounts should be rare and only available to those who specially design their character to that use, I do not foresee this becoming an issue...But if it did, you "breed" them and hope you do not hit the games entity cap ("they" would probably know if this was occurring and would act to keep it from happening...like upgrade their servers. I would hope the initial cap was kept well below any critical thresholds, just in case something odd happens). But, could you imagine how many animals you would have to kill to feed 1000 griffons? That is a lot of decline in the number entities going on at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, the other problem you'd encounter with that is if there were only 1000 griffins on the server and all of them have riders and you can't find one out in the wild. How do I get a griffin to ride?
Kill someones griffin? In the event that they cannot be despawned can be killed, and are high maintenance high cost creatures. I concede my arguments against the issue as well.
Or kill the owner and retrain your NEW griffin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I was thinking of with flying mounts is that, with a few examples, you can't remain in the air for too long.
I know this makes no sense from one point of view, but imagine that a mount who can fly can only do so for a short while, say 10 or 15 minutes at most.
This ties in to that flying with a rider is tiring. The mount, depending upon type, might be able to run for hours, but flying is something that might only be doable in short bursts at a time. Of course 'full' flying mounts such as Giant Eagles and Drakes would have no problem flying at all times, but their land speeds are a joke. By contrast, a Hippogriff could fly all day without a rider, but with one, the added weight means constantly flying causes the animal damage, and a caring owner (glaring look at the mount-abusers out there) would understand this and not push the animal to the point where the poor critter collapses mid-air and falls to mutual death at 1 mile in the air.
Furthermore, while all critters might be trainable, not all will be able to be domesticated. Griffons and Hippogriffs would potentially be the highest level 'domesticated' mounts, although a Griffon I would see, given it's higher mental scores, less a mount and more an 'end game' reward for a Character who has focused on 'Pet' Skills. Yes you can have a Drake (Result of Draconic Incest....eck!) flying you around. Good luck getting it to not do something destructive in town if it gets stressed out by other players running up to it to go "WOOOOOOOOOOOW!" or not eating the other mounts in the stables.
Again I point to farm concept I was tinkering with. The more exotic the creature you are striving to breed, the greater the time, money and effort you will have to expend to get your breeding, feeding and training to hold up to the strain.
This places a limiter on how many 'Epic Mounts' might be in play at a time, although inevitably as everyone gets better and better, we will all want the utility of a flying mount, or a stealthy mount, or a mount that can outrun dragons, etc etc.
Furthermore some of the more exotic mounts will likely balk at being placed in a stable, or being treated as anything less than a beloved friend or highly valued mercenary. Mistreating an exotic mount by continuously treating it like a mere beast could lead to it abandoning you, putting the player on a personal quest to track down their Exotic Mount and either beating it into submission (which personally makes me rage silently yet also praise world PvP, as I could then join Bob the Pegasus beating Sir Darklord the Doucheadin into a coma) or bribe/befriend the Exotic Mount back into their service.
A Horse or similar 'mundane' mount just needs oats, grass, water and a stable. Not very intensive or expensive to keep Mr Ed happy.
A rarer beast, like a Riding Panther from the depths of the forest, would be much harder to keep happy, but still only requires mundane treatment. Fresh meat, water, someplace private and quiet to sleep and some distance from the rubes so he doesn't use them as scratching posts.
A Magical Beast, like a Advanced (Medium) Aurumvorax, is harder still to keep 'happy', but has much greater advantages, namely being a monster in combat (pun not intended) and being perfectly willing to follow it's master into danger above or below ground at will. Not only a drain on gold for the feeding, grooming and finding it a place to sleep in town with relative impunity from eating other mounts/NPCs, but it's unique dietary needs means it's an actual, literal drain on your gold-pieces.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good points...flight time, like land travel, could be tied to encumbrance and mount strength. This would lead to light (small) characters being the best riders...and keep the riders lightly armed and armored. Balance.
And you illustrate the costs nicely. I would not argue that these costs are required to cut peoples fun or access to cool...but it is one way to keep access to the cool available (which is most important), while maintaining balance. Having to deal with the negative as part of getting the positive can also be made fun, it is a challenge to be overcome.
It ensures being a rancher of any animal is seen with the same amount (if not more) respect as a crafter or warrior.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, this is why I argued mounts should not be despawnable...and they must be fed or they leave/die. Feeding a dragon would be expensive. Balance.
Capital costs of flying mounts are large, but operating expenses are huge.
If we make the expensive food item part of the spawning, or have the mounts consume food over time when used/active, we get the desired effect. Ideally it would be expensive to own a griffon, and riding a dragon should require that you convince the dragon that she wants you to ride her. Balance with dragons simply requires that the dragons don't choose to do anything cheesy.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
to the point where the poor critter collapses mid-air and falls to mutual death at 1 mile in the air.
I hope you were using a lot of hyperbole with the falling damage thing.
It takes the same amount of ADDITIONAL energy to go from level flight at just above the ground to level flight at 5000' as it would to climb a 5000' ladder. (That's added effort above and beyond maintaining level flight.) Imagine, if you will, running up the down escalator of a skyscraper with somebody on your back. THAT is what flying creatures experience- expecting them to do that AND have enough endurance to be useful afterwards is absurd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
to the point where the poor critter collapses mid-air and falls to mutual death at 1 mile in the air.
I hope you were using a lot of hyperbole with the falling damage thing.
It takes the same amount of ADDITIONAL energy to go from level flight at just above the ground to level flight at 5000' as it would to climb a 5000' ladder. (That's added effort above and beyond maintaining level flight.) Imagine, if you will, running up the down escalator of a skyscraper with somebody on your back. THAT is what flying creatures experience- expecting them to do that AND have enough endurance to be useful afterwards is absurd.
Very true, I imagine it takes much less energy to glide though...and if they expend all their energy they can just glide to the ground (this in my opinion is a happy balance). Perhaps time spent gliding could also be used to recharge their "stamina". Would we be going too far if we ask for "roving" columns of up and down air currents (perhaps they could be identified with cloud formations)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, there's got to be a level of suspension for a fantasy game but at the same point, falling from the sky in the saddle of a horse-sized (or bigger) creature in armor with all that adventuring gear on you .... it's going to hurt, one way or the other, when you land.
Of course spells like feather fall and large, deep pools of water can only help.
And you point about the level of flight? Good point! The higher you go, the less flight time you have. It means you might possibly be able to fly right over the bandits, but you will need to land, quickly, so your mount doesn't take damage or possibly fold up their wings and take matters into their own hand.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I can see 'gliding to the surface' as the termination of flight due to exhaustion, and technically anything that can glide can ride a sufficiently strong updraft. I just can't imagine a full flying predator able to fly with much more than its own weight, and an unarmored soldier would bring even an uptrained one to their physical limits.
Adventurers carry a lot of things on their person that soldiers don't, and armies with flying creatures don't deploy them in the field for long periods of time. The locations where a flying mount can be housed and trained are either inaccessible, being in steep cliffs, or megaproject constructions that triple as military castles and seats of government.
That said, a lightly armed and armored, fast, low endurance combatant is sometimes exactly what is needed. Being able to launch flying strikes against an enemy's supply lines means that any nearby opposing army has to guard their entire line of supply and baggage train, drastically increasing the costs of operating in the area of a griffon tower. For adventurers, scouting operations could pay for themselves if the target is lucrative enough- I could see flying over an area, then approaching on foot with a better understanding of the local terrain, or where the tents are.
Running straight off of the SRD, I'd rather be on the side with a Wand of Blindness/Deafness than on the side with a few trained griffons and riders.
Would this be a good rough summary of what we've discussed here and what we would find to be acceptable? Feel free to add anything I missed.
-Riding and Animal Handling at skill cap for exotic mounts.
-Finite amount of mounts or exotic mount available in the world. Perhaps based on a percentage of the active accounts and in the case of exotics limited one per account?
-Mounts cannot be de-spawned.
-Mounts Killable but will be re-spawned in the wild over time.
-Mounts Stealable through killing owner, new owner must retrain the mount to ride it.
-Mounts have scalable upkeep vs. its rarity.
-Flying mounts can’t stay in the air indefinitely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would this be a good rough summary of what we've discussed here and what we would find to be acceptable? Feel free to add anything I missed.
-Riding and Animal Handling at skill cap for exotic mounts.
-Finite amount of mounts or exotic mount available in the world. Perhaps based on a percentage of the active accounts and in the case of exotics limited one per account?
-Mounts cannot be de-spawned.
-Mounts Killable but will be re-spawned in the wild over time.
-Mounts Stealable through killing owner, new owner must retrain the mount to ride it.
-Mounts have scalable upkeep vs. its rarity.
-Flying mounts can’t stay in the air indefinitely.
I would say varying degree of Riding/Animal Handle...horse would require both too, if you intended to care for your horse. If you are taking someone else's horse and you do not intend to care for it, Riding is probably sufficient. Exotic beasts on the other hand, would probably be personal...with rare exception only allowing its trainer to fly it (perhaps a higher skill than the trainer is necessary to steal it...and of course, since skills are not displayed, the thief could find themselves being eaten...). This is why I suggested both would be necessary (and of course, the skill limits are a way to ensure they are kept only to those who specialize in their use). I would say a sliding scale of Riding/Animal Handle as the animal becomes less "pet-like".
In fact, High level Riding may branch into Riding/Flying...with Flying in turn branching into each of the respective possible flying mounts.
I would not inflict any arbitrary limits on the populations of specific animals or animal ownership. They can see during their slow roll-out how a big a problem it becomes. It maybe the case that they add teleports for the sake of convenience and no one bothers to put enough points in ride to warrant special mount allowances. Likewise, if someone wanted to spend all their time caring for mounts/pets...I have no qualms with them doing so.
Also, I would not bother with any arbitrary spawning if a mount dies. Just the normal spawning/breeding is sufficient. If the wild ones are replaced with domestic versions...so be it.
Other than that, I think it looks like a lot of fun. I do want to point out the following quote though from a previous discussion:
Everything that is put into the game which is not a static object requires the server and clients to track it. The amount of such traffic is an N^2 problem - the amount is the exponent of the number of such objects.
Thus, no MMO ever leaves anything in the gamespace that is not critical to the functioning of the game. Objects which are no longer necessary for play are removed as quickly as possible to reduce the strain on the system.
That's why you'll not see hundreds of thousands of horses standing around waiting for riders.
...which of course only states a problem, not their intent to do anything a certain way. It maybe that the work involved it the system we outlined is a sufficient deterrent to prevent the "hundreds of thousands of horses standing around waiting for riders."
Personally, I would love to see this type system, but I will not get my hopes up. It would be more resource intense and is predicated upon many other points in debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say varying degree of Riding/Animal Handle...horse would require both too, if you intended to care for your horse.
Agreed and that was what I was trying to imply, however poorly.
If you are taking someone else's horse and you do not intend to care for it, Riding is probably sufficient.
My thought there was to add a bit of a time sink by requiring the animal to be retrained. That way players might want to think about a bit before they gank someone for their mount.
In fact, High level Riding may branch into Riding/Flying...with Flying in turn branching into each of the respective possible flying mounts.
Agreed.
I would not inflict any arbitrary limits on the populations of specific animals or animal ownership. They can see during their slow roll-out how a big a problem it becomes. It maybe the case that they add teleports for the sake of convenience and no one bothers to put enough points in ride to warrant special mount allowances. Likewise, if someone wanted to spend all their time caring for mounts/pets...I have no qualms with them...
I meant more specifically for the exotics which should be in the neighborhood of 10-20% of active accounts dependent on the variety of exotics available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a broad statement not only about the mechanics of a game no one has played...but also peoples play style. Just because every MMO out there requires combat, does not mean that given a choice to do other things, this is what people will always do in an MMO. I think someones previous example of Farmville, illustrates a demand for a non-combat "farming simulator". The fact that these "raise a pet" mini-games do well illustrates an audience for non-combat "pet raising simulators". Be careful not to mistake what has been done in MMOs to what must be done in MMOs.
I'm not. I think I will be shown to be correct in that the majority of PFO players will participate in combat in at least moderate doses.
We have already had a discussion about how Dragons as a mount would be a great siege weapon.
Making mounts a combat tool generates an entire new dimension to this discussion. My arguments only apply if mounts are for transportation only.
The ability to find, catch, feed, care for, raise, control, train, fly, and do combat with...a flying mount should be comprised of at least as many skills as melee combat.
I think it probably won't be.
I don't see why the adversarial nature of a thing requires a mechanic that should be true for advancing all skills.
When the opposed nature of skills turns their progression into an arms race (perhaps literally, in this case), from a design perspective there is an incentive to curtailing those skills' progress.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I will be shown to be correct in that the majority of PFO players will participate in combat in at least moderate doses.
You are great at arguing with points not made. I did not say the majority of people or even all people in PFO would not want to enjoy combat at some stage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I will be shown to be correct in that the majority of PFO players will participate in combat in at least moderate doses.You are great at arguing with points not made. I did not say the majority of people or even all people in PFO would not want to enjoy combat at some stage.
Then perhaps I should clarify. I believe that most people will spend more of their time on activities related to combat than they will on activities specifically related to flying mounts. I further believe that this justifies a longer expected leveling time for combat skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then perhaps I should clarify. I believe that most people will spend more of their time on activities related to combat than they will on activities specifically related to flying mounts. I further believe that this justifies a longer expected leveling time for combat skills.I think I will be shown to be correct in that the majority of PFO players will participate in combat in at least moderate doses.You are great at arguing with points not made. I did not say the majority of people or even all people in PFO would not want to enjoy combat at some stage.
Well, I believe you say this because this is what you have been served previously and you cannot conceive of a different dynamic.
I guarantee you there is a huge previously untapped audience of gamers who like homsteading, gardening, catching fireflies, etc. You are suggesting that because these people do not play MMOs, no MMO should bother catering to them...I suggest that because no MMO has ever catered to them (in a non-My Little Pony sense), these people do not play MMOs. Therefore, building an MMO that allows them the freedom to do the things they want would get their attention.
Even though I really do think I am right...I do know you are partially correct in that the devs in PFO will probably only make a token effort toward this "other crowd". It is a much safer bet to attract the combat crowd...but, since you are the one always claiming to argue for "what is best for the game", I think you are arguing the wrong point.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Then perhaps I should clarify. I believe that most people will spend more of their time on activities related to combat than they will on activities specifically related to flying mounts. I further believe that this justifies a longer expected leveling time for combat skills.I think I will be shown to be correct in that the majority of PFO players will participate in combat in at least moderate doses.You are great at arguing with points not made. I did not say the majority of people or even all people in PFO would not want to enjoy combat at some stage.Well, I believe you say this because this is what you have been served previously and you cannot conceive of a different dynamic.
I guarantee you there is a huge previously untapped audience of gamers who like homsteading, gardening, catching fireflies, etc. You are suggesting that because these people do not play MMOs, no MMO should bother catering to them...I suggest that because no MMO has ever catered to them (in a non-My Little Pony sense), these people do not play MMOs. Therefore, building an MMO that allows them the freedom to do the things they want would get their attention.
Even though I really do think I am right...I do know you are partially correct in that the devs in PFO will probably only make a token effort toward this "other crowd". It is a much safer bet to attract the combat crowd...but, since you are the one always claiming to argue for "what is best for the game", I think you are arguing the wrong point.
Some people will spend more time on the noncombat activities than the combat activities- this has been true since EQ. This is true regardless of the depth of the noncombatant roles, but deeper noncombat play will attract more players to the role, as will direct implications on combat players.
If finding, raising, and selling a mount is just as fun as mining, refining, smithing, and selling a sword, then people will be equally attracted to both options- I don't think we want to exclude crafting weapons which grant an advantage to their wielder, so why should we exclude mounts which grant an advantage to their rider?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.
Really, it's the only true sandbox MMO in my opinion.
And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.
Really, it's the only true sandbox MMO in my opinion.
Second Life cannot really hold true to being much of a sandbox without any combat. Part of the allure of a true sandbox is that the sandcastles rise and fall via player actions and interactions. Kicking another persons sandcastle over is as much a part of a functional sandbox as all of the intricacies that go into building a sandcastle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second Life cannot really hold true to being much of a sandbox without any combat. Part of the allure of a true sandbox is that the sandcastles rise and fall via player actions and interactions. Kicking another persons sandcastle over is as much a part of a functional sandbox as all of the intricacies that go into building a sandcastle.And to further expand on the existence of the non-combatant crowd, Second Life has an active base of nearly 800,000. Combat isn't an option in that game, it's just building, role-playing, socializing, and shopping from what I noticed.
Really, it's the only true sandbox MMO in my opinion.
So the only appeal of creating is that some other goon can come along and destroy your creation? We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.